United Services Automobile Ass'n v. Superior Court

Good Law
113 Cal. Rptr. 2d 328·2001 Cal. App. LEXIS 1180·2001 Daily Journal DAR 11715·93 Cal. App. 4th 633·2001 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 9396
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaNovember 1, 2001B150551California5,044 words

Opinion

Opinion

Vogel, J.

Introduction

United Services Automobile Association (USAA) filed a petition for a writ of mandate challenging the trial court’s determination that a sliding scale settlement agreement between the real parties in interest John Moore and his former attorneys Daniels, Baratta & Fine (DBF) was made in “good faith” pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 877.

We grant the petition. The consideration paid for the settlement consisted of a noncontingent $1 million and an interest-free loan of $3.5 million repayable only upon the contingency of its recovery from the nonsettling tortfeasor. Nevertheless, the settlement agreement provided that the value to be placed on all the payments of $4.5 million, for the purpose of establishing the credit to which the nonsettling defendant will be entitled, is only $1 million. In effect the settling parties agreed that the $3.5 million loan had no value to the settling plaintiffs. We hold that the settling parties failed to support this evaluation by substantial evidence. Therefore, the trial court erred in approving the settlement.

Background

On August 25, 1999, John Moore and Patricia Moore (the Moores) filed a complaint against…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.